International Law Regarding Occupied Iraq

INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING OCCUPIED IRAQ

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, next week we are going to have a supplemental appropriations bill of at least $75 billion before the Congress of the United States for the funding necessary for the military action in Iraq, at least for the early part of that action, which number could not have been decided when we passed the appropriations bills in January because at that point there would not have been any military action. I raise this issue now in conjunction with what there is in international law in regard to a victorious power in a nation, after the war is done, of what can be used of the natural resources of a country for the victorious country to administer the nation as well as to rebuild that nation.

The reason I raise these points about international law is because there is very clear international law about what a victorious nation can do and cannot do in regard to the resources of the defeated nation. I raise this issue at this point because I want to make sure the American taxpayers are not saddled with any of the costs of rebuilding Iraq that can be legitimately paid for, under international law, out of the resources of Iraq.

After the first full week of the conflict, the allied forces have pushed well into the country, liberating Iraqi populations across western and southern Iraq. These developments, then, raise an issue that must be explored and discussed before we obligate taxpayers' money to rebuilding Iraq; that is, with regard to the United States and allied occupation of Iraq, what does international law tell us? What does international law dictate with regard to our rights as the occupying power to administer Iraq's oil resources and our obligations to the citizens of Iraq?

The Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention provide the basis for international law with regard to the obligations and rights of an occupying power. They provide specific guidelines for administering the resources of the occupied territory and the obligations of the occupying power to provide for the welfare and the safety of the occupied people.

With regard to the rights of an occupying power to use public property and resources, article 53 of Hague regulations of 1907 provides that an occupying power can only take possession of state-owned property, and any seizure of private property must be restored and compensation provided when peace is made.

Further, article 55 provides:

The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State.

The rules of usufruct provide a tenant—in this case it would be the United States or the coalition forces—the right to use and enjoy the profits of property owned by Iraq, as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way. In addition, the allied forces may use the public assets only for the benefit of Iraq and the Iraqi people, and to defray the costs of administration.

Secretary Powell recently reaffirmed this right. When discussing the issue of oilfields, he stated:
You can be sure that they [meaning the oilfields] would be protected and the revenue generated from any such oil fields would be used in accordance with international law and to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

The occupying power may also take possession of public movable property only if such property can be directly or indirectly used for military operations. Clearly, Iraq's oil reserves are susceptible to military use and thereby subject to seizure by U.S. military forces under the laws of war to restore Iraq.

In addition, the oil produced from Iraqi wells may be considered similar to the produce of public land which, under article 55, may be appropriated by the occupying power.

With regard to the obligations of the occupying power, article 43 of Hague regulations of 1907 state:
The authority of the legitimate power, having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take steps in his power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

The Geneva Convention, relevant to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, states that the occupying power is also responsible for establishing a direct system of administration and maintaining the public order.
The key restriction to the use of Iraq's oil is that the proceeds are limited to occupation purposes, which includes measures taken in the furtherance of fulfilling that obligation that I just read under article 43, to reestablish peace and order to Iraq. Clearly, international law provides that the United States is entitled to use the money from oil sales to pay for such obligations as long as food and water, health care, roads and bridges, schools and airports, as examples.

Once a viable Iraqi government is established, the oilfields must be returned to Iraq in a reasonable condition.
One final issue for debate will be the role of the U.N. in the reconstruction and administration of Iraq. For example, what will remain of the United Nations Oil For Food Program in post-Saddam Iraq? Given the U.N.'s inability to fulfill its obligations with regard to enforcing Security Council Resolution 1441, it is unclear whether the U.N. will be relevant at all in the reconstruction efforts of Iraq.

It is my hope that the U.N. will follow the lead of the United States, Britain, and the other 40 or more allies currently in Iraq enforcing the U.N. resolutions. After all, it must be made very clear that the resources of Iraq will finally be available for the use of the Iraqi people, for the betterment of those same people.

For far too long, we know the prisoners of Saddam's regime have been deprived of their country's riches and forced to survive as peasants. While the responsibility for providing for the welfare of the Iraqi people belonged to Saddam Hussein, he was, as we know, more interested in spending it on himself in the form of elaborate palaces and in the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraqi people will finally share in the wealth of their country that has always belonged to them rather than Saddam sharing it with his family and the cronies of his brutal regime.

I hope the Congress will take into consideration the rights the taxpayers of the United States have under this Geneva Convention, to make sure the resources for the rebuilding of Iraq come from Iraqi natural resources and not from the American taxpayers. That should be fully taken into consideration, as some of the money we appropriate next week will probably be used for that purpose of at first establishing administration in Iraq.

I yield the floor.